13 ms·

By 'other side' you mean....the CCP: "CGTN is funded in whole or in part by the Chinese government."

dntbnmpls 7y ago
"The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) is a non-partisan defence and strategic policy think tank based in Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, founded by the Australian government and partly funded by the Australian Department of Defence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Strategic_Policy_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Strategic_Policy_In... So yes, lets see what both sides have to say. Or neither. You can't defend one set of propagandists while rejecting another without seeming a bit biased or agenda-driven.
- aptidude187 7y ago
  Your argument appears sane on the surface, but falls flat on its face, when considering that the CCP has a well established track record of outright lying and denying facts, which were established through independent international research. What interest would the Australian government have in challenging China, when much of their economy relies on them! On top of that, most of the provided information just matches other independent research. The only one who is defending propagandists is you.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    US companies sponsor the think tank to promote US over China. They don't try to hide that.
  - dirtyid 7y ago
    >What interest would the Australian government have in challenging China There's a general misalignment in FVEY countries between security and trade interests. Australia is particularly divided due to huge Chinese economic dependency but also absolute US security dependency (also Pine Gap). It's not surprising that intelligence agencies in countries in similar positions have tried protect their organizational interests - see UK defense Secretary Williamson fired over Huawei leak when US threaten to sever intelligence sharing if UK allowed even limited Huawei presence. AU PM basically admitted that the main reason for banning Huawei was because they didn't want to lose intelligence sharing not risk of Chinese spying. Then you have the recent fiasco with Wang Liqiang in Australia, the defecting Chinese "spy" whose ridiculous claims unsurprisingly turned out be sensationalist farce, debunked by multiple AU security sources including ASIO who vetted Wang a month before China Hawk MP Andrew Hastie tried to make his defection a narrative. They still let the story play out. It's textbook western propaganda. In the coordinated reports at the time, ASPI executive director Peter Jennings said something to the affect that Wang's testimony provided unprecedented insight into Beijing’s espionage activities, when all of Wang's dubious claims was immediately identified by anyone with 2 brain cells to be false. I mentioned in another post that ASPI does some decent work on aggregating Chinese data points, but their conclusions skew anti-China and pro-US because despite being and AU think tank, much of their funding comes from US and US aligned parties. Biased sources can still be useful, as long as you're aware it's biased.
    - aptidude187 7y ago
      I don't see how the points you made relate to the evidence provided by the research. Can you point out explicit segments from the research, which you think are 'biased'? You just wrote an unconvincing wall of text, talking about random events to somehow make a point that Australia is biased against China, despite their economic dependency on them. This still doesn't make anything coming from a CCP financed source any more credible or trustworthy, being cognisant of the history of the CCP and their never ending lies and manipulation.
      - dirtyid 7y ago
        It relates to your claim that Australia, in this case an AU think tank that represents pro-US security status quo funded by US/Japan/Taiwan has no reason to manufacture consent via biased analysis in current geopolitical climate. It does, especially ASPI which has been explicitly criticized by prominent AU political figures as being extremely biased. >>Former NSW premier Bob Carr has accused it of pumping out a “one-sided, pro-American view of the world”. Veteran foreign editor Tony Walker has slammed its "dystopian worldview" which "leaves little room for viewing China as a potential partner". "It lacks integrity and brings shame to Australia," says retired former DFAT chief and ex-Qantas CEO John Menadue. “I see it as very much the architect of the China threat theory in Australia”, adds ex-ambassador to China turned Beijing-based business consultant Geoff Raby. Alternatively these figures are themselves incentive to maintain friendly relationship with China. Every faction has their interests. Also I didn't claim CCP was unbiased, the assertion is that neither is ASPI. Being cognizant the history of western foreign policy and their never ending lies and manipulation as per parent comment to evaluate like with like.
        aptidude187 7y ago
        You ignored a crucial question, I repeat: Can you point out explicit segments from the research, which you think are 'biased'?
        dirtyid 7y ago
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > when considering that the CCP has a well established track record of outright lying and denying facts Fine, then expose the lies. Also, typing "CCP" makes it very obvious you have an agenda. And as I said, everybody lies. > What interest would the Australian government have in challenging China, when much of their economy relies on them! It's called the american/anglo-american/western world order. The same reason Canada arrested a chinese executive. Before ww2, germany relied on soviet union for their economy and Japan relied on the US for their economy. WW2 still happened. Not sure why you think economic reliance necessarily prevents national rivalries. Especially during a major trade war. > On top of that, most of the provided information just matches other independent research. I'm sure they do. Propaganda usually works that way. And I wouldn't be so loose with words like "indepedent research". > The only one who is defending propagandists is you. Aren't you the one defending Australian Strategic Policy Institute? The only one defending propagandists is you. I'm more than happy to call all propagandists out.

"The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) is a non-partisan defence and strategic policy think tank based in Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, founded by the Australian government and partly funded by the Australian Department of Defence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Strategic_Policy_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Strategic_Policy_In... So yes, lets see what both sides have to say. Or neither. You can't defend one set of propagandists while rejecting another without seeming a bit biased or agenda-driven.

aptidude187 7y ago
Your argument appears sane on the surface, but falls flat on its face, when considering that the CCP has a well established track record of outright lying and denying facts, which were established through independent international research. What interest would the Australian government have in challenging China, when much of their economy relies on them! On top of that, most of the provided information just matches other independent research. The only one who is defending propagandists is you.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  US companies sponsor the think tank to promote US over China. They don't try to hide that.
- dirtyid 7y ago
  >What interest would the Australian government have in challenging China There's a general misalignment in FVEY countries between security and trade interests. Australia is particularly divided due to huge Chinese economic dependency but also absolute US security dependency (also Pine Gap). It's not surprising that intelligence agencies in countries in similar positions have tried protect their organizational interests - see UK defense Secretary Williamson fired over Huawei leak when US threaten to sever intelligence sharing if UK allowed even limited Huawei presence. AU PM basically admitted that the main reason for banning Huawei was because they didn't want to lose intelligence sharing not risk of Chinese spying. Then you have the recent fiasco with Wang Liqiang in Australia, the defecting Chinese "spy" whose ridiculous claims unsurprisingly turned out be sensationalist farce, debunked by multiple AU security sources including ASIO who vetted Wang a month before China Hawk MP Andrew Hastie tried to make his defection a narrative. They still let the story play out. It's textbook western propaganda. In the coordinated reports at the time, ASPI executive director Peter Jennings said something to the affect that Wang's testimony provided unprecedented insight into Beijing’s espionage activities, when all of Wang's dubious claims was immediately identified by anyone with 2 brain cells to be false. I mentioned in another post that ASPI does some decent work on aggregating Chinese data points, but their conclusions skew anti-China and pro-US because despite being and AU think tank, much of their funding comes from US and US aligned parties. Biased sources can still be useful, as long as you're aware it's biased.
  - aptidude187 7y ago
    I don't see how the points you made relate to the evidence provided by the research. Can you point out explicit segments from the research, which you think are 'biased'? You just wrote an unconvincing wall of text, talking about random events to somehow make a point that Australia is biased against China, despite their economic dependency on them. This still doesn't make anything coming from a CCP financed source any more credible or trustworthy, being cognisant of the history of the CCP and their never ending lies and manipulation.
    - dirtyid 7y ago
      It relates to your claim that Australia, in this case an AU think tank that represents pro-US security status quo funded by US/Japan/Taiwan has no reason to manufacture consent via biased analysis in current geopolitical climate. It does, especially ASPI which has been explicitly criticized by prominent AU political figures as being extremely biased. >>Former NSW premier Bob Carr has accused it of pumping out a “one-sided, pro-American view of the world”. Veteran foreign editor Tony Walker has slammed its "dystopian worldview" which "leaves little room for viewing China as a potential partner". "It lacks integrity and brings shame to Australia," says retired former DFAT chief and ex-Qantas CEO John Menadue. “I see it as very much the architect of the China threat theory in Australia”, adds ex-ambassador to China turned Beijing-based business consultant Geoff Raby. Alternatively these figures are themselves incentive to maintain friendly relationship with China. Every faction has their interests. Also I didn't claim CCP was unbiased, the assertion is that neither is ASPI. Being cognizant the history of western foreign policy and their never ending lies and manipulation as per parent comment to evaluate like with like.
      - aptidude187 7y ago
        You ignored a crucial question, I repeat: Can you point out explicit segments from the research, which you think are 'biased'?
        dirtyid 7y ago
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > when considering that the CCP has a well established track record of outright lying and denying facts Fine, then expose the lies. Also, typing "CCP" makes it very obvious you have an agenda. And as I said, everybody lies. > What interest would the Australian government have in challenging China, when much of their economy relies on them! It's called the american/anglo-american/western world order. The same reason Canada arrested a chinese executive. Before ww2, germany relied on soviet union for their economy and Japan relied on the US for their economy. WW2 still happened. Not sure why you think economic reliance necessarily prevents national rivalries. Especially during a major trade war. > On top of that, most of the provided information just matches other independent research. I'm sure they do. Propaganda usually works that way. And I wouldn't be so loose with words like "indepedent research". > The only one who is defending propagandists is you. Aren't you the one defending Australian Strategic Policy Institute? The only one defending propagandists is you. I'm more than happy to call all propagandists out.